Is it time to ditch the Q2/3 and fully embrace the SL2?

[Sohail]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Q is a great camera and concept. I used to have the Q1 and currently have the Q2. But I haven't jumped on the Q3 bandwagon this time around, and am seriously thinking of ditching the Q concept altogether. Instead, it seems to be that Investing in a 28mm APO SL would be a much wiser decision. Of course, the only major advantage the Q offers is weight and form factor. The Q3 weighs 743g. The SL2 + 28mm is 1535g. What's 792g between friends?  But with that weight difference, it means inferior optical performance with the Q. The 1.7 Summilux lens was already struggling on the Q2's 47MP sensor. On the Q3, images are really soft (with exception of the centre) and undergo a lot of in-camera processing. When they get around to working on the Q4, their first priority should be to update the lens.

If like me, your go-to focal length is 28mm and you want the best optical performance that Leica can offer in a 28mm lens, it can surely only be the 28mm SL APO lens. But, unfortunately, I don't own one because my Q2 would have made it redundant. So maybe it's time to ditch the Q and embrace the SL2 fully.

Thoughts?

Edited July 6, 2023 by Sohail

[jplomley]

On my M10-R and M10-M, the 28 Summicron Asph v2 is my workhorse...I just see in that focal length for street. And for landscapes, my 90mm Rodenstock on 4x5 was my go to lens, as was the 35mm Summarit for the original S2. So when the 28 APO arrived for the SL2 I was absolutely delighted, however I already had the 35 APO since it was launched ahead of the 28...as well, purchased the 16-35 whilst waiting for the promised 21/24 combo to arrive. So now I'm not so certain about adding a 28 APO, as the zoom is just so flexible and 28 vs. 35 not all that disparate.  And the 35 APO is simply spectacular. But still.....the 28 APO calls...if only I could be certain we will ever see the 21 or 24 APO's, that might help with the decision. I also have the 75 APO L, so 35/75 has worked as a good combo and the 24 APO would make a great trio. Never really got into the Q or any fixed lens platform. Just seems limiting to me...subject matter changes, so why wouldn't your lenses to accommodate?

[Photoworks]

Why not have both?

In the end, the Q lens is much wider than 28.

[Stuart Richardson]

I agree. Perhaps the true ideal would be an L mount Q, released along with one or two compact primes to supplement the SL system. But I guess that would cannibalize the SL line too much and perhaps make the Q and lens unaffordable for the target audience. But I am with you Sohail, the Q has a lot of charms, but for me at least it is the lens that is the main barrier. For me it is both too wide and too soft for what I like to do. That is mostly landscapes and large prints. For people who are using it more as a travel camera or day to day carry, it is clearly working very well for a lot of customers. But I agree that I wish they did not push the lens design all the way from the original Q, where it was fantastic, to the Q3 where it is starting to look like a handicap.

[frame-it]

18 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

an L mount Q,

a 36mp L Mount CL2

 

[Stuart Richardson]

28 minutes ago, frame-it said:

a 36mp L Mount CL2

 

Only if it were full frame…

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Only if it were full frame…

and only if leica had not abandoned it

[jplomley]

Can anyone with the 28 APO chime in, especially if they have done comparisons against the Q2/Q3 and 35 APO SL. Would love to hear some first-hand real world experience on how this lens stacks up as it seems there are very few in the wild as it were.

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I agree. Perhaps the true ideal would be an L mount Q, released along with one or two compact primes to supplement the SL system. But I guess that would cannibalize the SL line too much and perhaps make the Q and lens unaffordable for the target audience. But I am with you Sohail, the Q has a lot of charms, but for me at least it is the lens that is the main barrier. For me it is both too wide and too soft for what I like to do. That is mostly landscapes and large prints. For people who are using it more as a travel camera or day to day carry, it is clearly working very well for a lot of customers. But I agree that I wish they did not push the lens design all the way from the original Q, where it was fantastic, to the Q3 where it is starting to look like a handicap.

AFAIK, there is no indication that the current Q/Q2/Q3 lens is a handicap for Q3. Do you have other sources? On Q2M, it beats GFX100S with 45mm (link).

P.S.: The Q lens has a measured focal length of 26mm (link).

[Stuart Richardson]

55 minutes ago, SrMi said:

AFAIK, there is no indication that the current Q/Q2/Q3 lens is a handicap for Q3. Do you have other sources? On Q2M, it beats GFX100S with 45mm (link).

P.S.: The Q lens has a measured focal length of 26mm (link).

I subscribe to Reid Reviews and have a Q2. I draw my conclusions from those two sources. I also have the SL2 and 35mm and 50mm APO summicrons, so I know what I am missing…

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I subscribe to Reid Reviews and have a Q2. I draw my conclusions from those two sources. I also have the SL2 and 35mm and 50mm APO summicrons, so I know what I am missing…

I do not think comparing it with a much larger and heavier system (SL2 with 35, 50) is fair. Q cameras are a compromise in practicality, weight, and size.

Looking at professional work done with Q2 (LFI), I would say that the lens is more than good enough for serious work. Calling the lens a handicap is not true in my book.

[Ko.Fe.]

It is up to individual. For some slightly better optical performance is the reason to haul the brick.

I have been on this side, but switched to light cameras. I'm more concerned now about getting of the content, action, moment, but not perfect utilization of overly provided (for my needs) megapixels. And some how I'm more confident, productive and recognized with light cameras for it. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ko.Fe.

[Stuart Richardson]

I think it is a good camera. I am not particularly concerned about what is fair, nor what is possible to accomplish at what profit margin Leica believes they need. Professional work is done on all sort of bad cameras. Take it from me as a printer...most artists are not using APO Summicrons. I just think that the Q3 should have used a lens that was capable of providing sharp, high microcontrast images from edge to edge, at least at the best aperture. It does not do that to my eyes. I did not really do that on the Q2 either. The lens is no worse than it was, and it is still a pretty decent lens, but the sensor and camera body are now really demanding because of the extra resolution, and I don't think the lens/sensor combo is still well matched. I also don't think this is something that Leica is incapable of improving. They have sharper lenses that are smaller than the Q2 in M mount. It feels to me like they felt like they could get away with kicking the ball down the court for another 3 or 4 years until a Q4. The Q is not really a "compromise" camera...it is 6000 dollars. Sigma's similar focal length lenses are as good or better and cost 500-1000 dollars max. The Q3 may be a good buy for some people, but for me at least, it does not seem like the value it was when the original Q was released, or the Q2. But honestly, think what you like! I don't really need anyone to agree with me.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[SrMi]

It is indicative of the Q2's image and lens quality that it seems pretty popular as a complementary camera to an MF system (GFX).

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think it is a good camera. I am not particularly concerned about what is fair, nor what is possible to accomplish at what profit margin Leica believes they need. Professional work is done on all sort of bad cameras. Take it from me as a printer...most artists are not using APO Summicrons. I just think that the Q3 should have used a lens that was capable of providing sharp, high microcontrast images from edge to edge, at least at the best aperture. It does not do that. I did not really do that on the Q2 either. I also don't think this is something that Leica is incapable of. They have sharper lenses that are smaller than the Q2 in M mount. It feels to me like they felt like they could get away with kicking the ball down the court for another 3 or 4 years until a Q4. The Q is not really a "compromise" camera...it is 6000 dollars. Sigma's similar focal length lenses are as good or better and cost 500-1000 dollars max. The Q3 may be a good buy for some people, but for me at least, it does not seem like the value it was when the original Q was released, or the Q2. But honestly, think what you like! I don't really need anyone to agree with me.

I do not think it is possible to build a 28/1.7 lens with macro capabilities and built-in OIS that would not rely on SDC while maintaining its size and weight. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I am not an optical engineer, so I don't know what they can do, but I bet it is entirely possible. The Ricoh GRIII and GRIIIx are APS cameras, but their lenses are a lot better than the one in the Q in terms of edge to edge sharpness. They are also stabilized and a very small fraction of the size of the Q, both lenses and bodies. Even at double they size, they are still smaller than the Q. They also cost a small fraction of the Q. I realize that Leica's premium is massive, but I fully believe it is within Leica's capabilities to make a Q with a sharper lens at equal or smaller size, especially given nearly 9 or 10 years since the lens was developed. I also think whether or not it is reliant on SDC is irrelevant as long as they can keep it sharp from edge to edge.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[goodbokeh]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

AFAIK, there is no indication that the current Q/Q2/Q3 lens is a handicap for Q3. Do you have other sources? On Q2M, it beats GFX100S with 45mm (link).

P.S.: The Q lens has a measured focal length of 26mm (link).

Your link is Apples and Oranges SrMi. That test is comparing the aliasing of the Q2M vs the Bayer sensored GFX 100S and has little to do with the Q's 28/1.7 overall performance.

[SrMi]

32 minutes ago, goodbokeh said:

Your link is Apples and Oranges SrMi. That test is comparing the aliasing of the Q2M vs the Bayer sensored GFX 100S and has little to do with the Q's 28/1.7 overall performance.

It shows that Q2M, with its lens, can provide more detail than GFX100 with 45mm. Yes, a big part is the lack of a CFA filter, but the lens must be good enough for the whole system to provide the demonstrated performance. BTW, Q2M puts stronger requirements on the lens than Q3.

[Chaemono]

The best Q is an S5II with the LUMIX logo taped (or an S5IIX) and two SL prime lenses IMO.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[gotium]

7 hours ago, Sohail said:

The Q is a great camera and concept. I used to have the Q1 and currently have the Q2. But I haven't jumped on the Q3 bandwagon this time around, and am seriously thinking of ditching the Q concept altogether. Instead, it seems to be that Investing in a 28mm APO SL would be a much wiser decision. Of course, the only major advantage the Q offers is weight and form factor. The Q3 weighs 743g. The SL2 + 28mm is 1535g. What's 792g between friends?  But with that weight difference, it means inferior optical performance with the Q. The 1.7 Summilux lens was already struggling on the Q2's 47MP sensor. On the Q3, images are really soft (with exception of the centre) and undergo a lot of in-camera processing. When they get around to working on the Q4, their first priority should be to update the lens.

If like me, your go-to focal length is 28mm and you want the best optical performance that Leica can offer in a 28mm lens, it can surely only be the 28mm SL APO lens. But, unfortunately, I don't own one because my Q2 would have made it redundant. So maybe it's time to ditch the Q and embrace the SL2 fully.

Thoughts?

Depends what you are looking for. No doubt you'll get much better IQ, particularly with edge sharpness with the SL28, so if you are doing landscapes or studio work no question. Personally I would NEVER use the SL system because of size and weight, and for my uses the Q lens is really good - even if optically limited. 

Agree with other comments about the GRiii and GRiiix above, BTW, I am using them more and more. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by gotium